psyche or alertable systemic bid?

[zenko]

I had interesting case where I got ave- for failure to alert, here is the hand: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...&username=zenko

 

Our only agreement was basic sayc, so I had a problem what to respond on my partner's 1 spade opener with 762, Q832, K103, AK6. I choose 2 clubs as least of evils and we ended up in 4 spades. Opponent called director claiming that if I alerted 2 cl he would lead club and get one more trick, and the verdict was that I deserve ave- for not alerting. My initial opinion was that the ruling was wrong since we have no special agreement regarding 2 cl bid (4 more pairs bid the same way, nobody called director on them). i.e. that if I choose to "psyche" 2 clubs response I have every right to do it. But the problem is that in sayc 2 club IS systemic bid with this hand, (for 2 h I need 5th h, for 2 nt 4th sp, for 3 nt I have one spade too many), therefore maybe you can make case that it should be alerted as possibly 3 cards with hand unsuitable for any other action. On the other hand, counter-argument can be that bidding 2 clubs on 3-card suit in this situation is "natural" action, not specific just for sayc. I checked ACBL rules and there is no mention about this... any opinions?

 

Zenko

[jdonn]

You were robbed. You did nothing wrong. If this happened to me I would report the director and what happened to Fred.

[Finch]

Whether it's alertable in your event or not depends on the alerting regulations in force. It probably isn't directly relevant but the English alerting regulations specifically mention that a 2C response to 1S that is ostensibly natural but might be exactly 3433 is not alertable: and that's in the context of an Acol-based system where you can respond 2NT (10-12) or 3NT (13+) to show this sort of hand.

 

By the way, I feel like a broken record, but adjusting the score to av- is an illegal ruling. Either the result stands, or the 2C response is alertable, and the opponents were damaged as a consequence (which does not always follow), and the result should be adjusted accordingly.

[hotShot]

Among others WBF, EBL and i think even ACBL accept 3+ length as natural for a minor.

So i can hardly think of a reason that would allow an adjustment here.

[pbleighton]

The director clearly doesn't understand SAYC. 2C is the ONLY possible response with this hand, unless you would bid 3H with 3 small in support, which is not standard practice.

 

You should pursue this, not to beat on the director, but to educate him.

 

Peter

[zenko]

The director clearly doesn't understand SAYC. 2C is the ONLY possible response with this hand, unless you would bid 3H with 3 small in support, which is not standard practice.

It is a bit of as paradox, but if it is really the case that 2 C bid is the only option (which I tend to agree), that may actually work in favor of the actual ruling, i.e. if 2 C on 3 cards is "systemic bid" then it should be alerted because it does not necessarily show club "suit". In another words, if I claimed to director "I psyched 2 C bid" it would be OK not to alert, but since I did not, does that imply I should have alerted it? The real question is how much difference makes the fact that this is very common approach, used in a lot of standard-based systems?

 

Zenko

[inquiry]

I think the ACBL addresses this issue in their "ALERT" Chart...

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertchart.html

 

To quote from the chart, a 2/1 response (your 2♣ bid) that is "About expected strength and shape" and "which shows at least game invitational values" do not need alerts (or prealerts).

 

In this case, 2♣ was at least game invitational value, and a three card suit with 3 controls falls well within the vague definition of "about the expected strenght or shape". Everyone knows a 2/1 can include balanced shapes, such as this.

[pigpenz]

yes i agree the ruling was bad....sometimes you have to make a bid that shows your values on the way to supporting partner.....and if it happens to be the opponents suit then so be it.

[barmar]

Just about every system has "holes" -- hands that have no perfect systemic bid. When you hold one of these hands, you have to improvise, often referred to as the "least lie". SAYC is a relatively simple system, and not an especially well-designed system, so it has quite a few holes (especially because it has no forcing minor-suit raise).

 

The hand in question is a problem in both SAYC and 2/1. Some players will bid 2♣ as you did (lying about their ♣ length), some will bid Jacoby 2NT (lying about their ♠ length), and some might even bid 2♥ (lying about their ♥ length -- I suspect this will be rare). Some pairs have the agreement to bid 3NT on 4333 13-15 hands, which solves this particular problem.

 

Finding the least lie is just normal bridge, not a special partnership agreement that needs to be disclosed. Often the choice between lying with 2♣ and 2NT will depend on the quality of the two suits. Swap your black suits and I think it would be reasonable to bid 2NT instead.

[glen]

Awful ruling. Report it to abuse@bridgebase.com, of course not to get the ruling changed now, but just so BBO staff can help track cases where the TD needs to improve.

 

----

 

Here's some cc fun from last night.

 

Opps using a sayc cc, with five card majors and natural carding, after strange carding during first hand and a four card major opening shows up:

 

glen: opps, signals are standard?

opp1: odd even

opp2: odd even

->glen: Automated message: Director ACBL_TD is now at the table as requested by glen

glen: hi TD, opps play odd/even discards and perhaps 4 card majors

glen: could you help them out with a cc

opp2: no td misc int

opp2: sorry glen misc one sp..i meant 1nt.sorry p and opps

glen: np on hand, just want to be playing with cc that reflects your agreements

 

< we continue on with no word from TD, no change to cc, so I finally call TD back>

 

->glen: Automated message: Director ACBL_TD is now at the table as requested by glen

glen: hi TD, cc still reflects sayc, not their agreements

ACBL_TD: u there?

->ACBL_TD: yup

 

<TD now doesn't say anything more, and we continue on>

 

opp2: typ

opp1: glp

 

<I try a private message>

 

->ACBL_TD: let me know if cc will be updated or if they will continue to play with misleading cc

opp2: sorry again misc...but that happens you know))

 

<opp had another hand where their opening did not reflect their hand, hence this comment, even though we said nothing>

 

->ACBL_TD: they told us they play odd/even discards

ACBL_TD (Lobby): and?

->ACBL_TD: and not on their cc

 

<TD says nothing>

 

->ACBL_TD: so you are going to let them continue whole tournament with misleading cc?

ACBL_TD (Lobby): I am in process of looking into it. Thx for reporting

->ACBL_TD: okay, didn't know what was going on

 

Never heard another word.

 

This is clearly not worth reporting, but repeated here for whatever entertainment value it might provide those who ran into same thing.

[luis]

You failed to alert 2♣ as "Natural"

But hell your pd didn't alert 1♠ as natural either so it was a flagrant infraction.

You failed to alert both your natural bids.

All bids should be alerted and you must say what you have in your hand

 

For example

when you bid 2♣ you alert

"Natural with 3-4-3-3 and 12 hcp"

when pd opens 1♠ he alerts

"Natural with 5-3-2-3 and 13 hcp"

Then the opps if they need may ask about specific honors like

"Do you have AK of clubs or just 3 small?"

And you tell them what you have in specific suits

 

It's the only way to properly defend a hand.

 

Maybe we can just hung the TD? Yes, that is probably better, if that guy can be a TD then I'm probably a ballet dancer.

 

Luis

[barmar]

Zenko's initial message describes what happened all wrong. His link doesn't work in that post (he cut and paste it from his post in another thread, and the "..." screwed it up), here's the working link:

 

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...&username=zenko

 

He ended up in 4♥, not 4♠, and the opponent did lead a ♣, when a ♦ lead would have set the contract. Even if you agree that there was misinformation, it's not at all clear how it led to the bad result.

 

Could Zenko please clarify the situation?

[zenko]

Yes we ended up in 4 H not in 4 S, and opponent complained that he would NOT lead clubs if there was alert. Sorry for this confusion, in any case I do not think it makes much difference, either way calling director feels wrong to me. Nevertheless I have sneaking suspicion that, how the rules are written right now, he might had valid complaint. I.e., I can not find anywhere in BBO alert/systems guidelines where it says specifically that is allowed to make systemic (non-psyche)bid on 3 card suit without alert. Therefore the same rule might apply as for say, 1 M response on Blue Club 1 D opening which systematically promises 3+ cards. I am not sure that "everybody knows" argument is worth much in this case, my opponent was obviously inexperienced player, to whom concept of 2 clubs bid being "natural" and non-alertabe even on 3 card-suit probably sounds preposterous. And I do think that rules should be written in a way that they cater even for players who can not wrap their minds around such obvious concepts. Judging form somebody else's post, it seems that British Bridge Federation understood that need.

 

Zenko

[kenberg]

2C appears ok to me here, but exactly where the line should be I am not sure. Let me vary this a little: 1H-2C-2N-3N. The guy on lead holds four spades and four clubs, and thinking that dummy will probably come down with 4+ clubs and 3- spades he leads a spade. Dummy comes down with four spades and three clubs. Their agreement is that 1H-1S promises five. The 2C bid was systemic not a thought out strategic call, their card is marked Flannery so the agreement about 1H-1S might have been guessed at, and let's suppose a club lead beats the contract, a spade lead gives it away. You are to rule: Just the breaks of the game, quit whining, or do you adjust the score?

 

I repeat on the posted hand I have no problem, I am seeking a border beyond which an alert is needed. There are of course many variations on this situation, all of them thorny imo. My own style is to complain only in the most egregious cases, but perhaps that isn't right.

 

Ken

[ochinko]

When partner opens 1H, and I have 3 hearts and 4 spades, I bid 1Sp, but if I have 3 hearts and 5 spades with 11-13 ponts I don't try to find a second fit, but bid 2m, alerting it as 3+ just in case, because I'm ready to double opps if they decide to defend in 4Sp, and they might feel deceived.

[barmar]

2C appears ok to me here, but exactly where the line should be I am not sure. Let me vary this a little: 1H-2C-2N-3N. The guy on lead holds four spades and four clubs, and thinking that dummy will probably come down with 4+ clubs and 3- spades he leads a spade. Dummy comes down with four spades and three clubs. Their agreement is that 1H-1S promises five. The 2C bid was systemic not a thought out strategic call, their card is marked Flannery so the agreement about 1H-1S might have been guessed at, and let's suppose a club lead beats the contract, a spade lead gives it away. You are to rule: Just the breaks of the game, quit whining, or do you adjust the score?

 

I repeat on the posted hand I have no problem, I am seeking a border beyond which an alert is needed. There are of course many variations on this situation, all of them thorny imo. My own style is to complain only in the most egregious cases, but perhaps that isn't right.

 

Ken

If you're using a particular convention (e.g. Flannery) that causes you to make the less natural bid (bypassing a 4-card ♠ suit to bid a 3-card ♣ suit), I think it makes sense to alert the bid as possibly being short. With standard bidding, the situation described in this thread can only occur over a 1♠ opening. However, you're not in general required (in ACBL, at least, I don't know about other jurisdictions) to alert the possibility of bypassing 4-card ♠ when responding 1NT.

 

But if you're using a natural system like SAYC or 2/1, and you're forced to bid 2♣ simply because it's the least of evils, that's essentially standard and should not require an alert.

[kenberg]

2C appears ok to me here, but exactly where the line should be I am not sure. Let me vary this a little: 1H-2C-2N-3N. The guy on lead holds four spades and four clubs, and thinking that dummy will probably come down with 4+ clubs and 3- spades he leads a spade. Dummy comes down with four spades and three clubs. Their agreement is that 1H-1S promises five. The 2C bid was systemic not a thought out strategic call, their card is marked Flannery so the agreement about 1H-1S might have been guessed at, and let's suppose a club lead beats the contract, a spade lead gives it away. You are to rule: Just the breaks of the game, quit whining, or do you adjust the score?

 

I repeat on the posted hand I have no problem, I am seeking a border beyond which an alert is needed. There are of course many variations on this situation, all of them thorny imo. My own style is to complain only in the most egregious cases, but perhaps that isn't right.

 

Ken

If you're using a particular convention (e.g. Flannery) that causes you to make the less natural bid (bypassing a 4-card ♠ suit to bid a 3-card ♣ suit), I think it makes sense to alert the bid as possibly being short. With standard bidding, the situation described in this thread can only occur over a 1♠ opening. However, you're not in general required (in ACBL, at least, I don't know about other jurisdictions) to alert the possibility of bypassing 4-card ♠ when responding 1NT.

 

But if you're using a natural system like SAYC or 2/1, and you're forced to bid 2♣ simply because it's the least of evils, that's essentially standard and should not require an alert.

This is pretty much how I view the ideal. I don't think it much happens that way in daily life at the bridge table. But then real life falls short of idealistic hopes in other areas as well.

[sfbp]

2C appears ok to me here, but exactly where the line should be I am not sure. Let me vary this a little: 1H-2C-2N-3N. The guy on lead holds four spades and four clubs, and thinking that dummy will probably come down with 4+ clubs and 3- spades he leads a spade. Dummy comes down with four spades and three clubs. Their agreement is that 1H-1S promises five. The 2C bid was systemic not a thought out strategic call, their card is marked Flannery so the agreement about 1H-1S might have been guessed at, and let's suppose a club lead beats the contract, a spade lead gives it away. You are to rule: Just the breaks of the game, quit whining, or do you adjust the score?

 

I repeat on the posted hand I have no problem, I am seeking a border beyond which an alert is needed.

 

I agree. I remember getting really ticked after something like

 

1H P 1S P

2C P 2S P

3NT P P P

 

And Declarer, a seasoned pro, turned up with a 3-card club suit. Afterwards it was dismissed out of hand as "just bridge" but it was perfectly clear that he avoided his normal rebid in order to deflect the obvious club lead. This was face-to-face, not online.

 

Yet the regulations say that 3-card length in minors is perfectly fine. Dummy had a singleton, declarer 3 small, I think.

 

Stephen

[kenberg]

Although I am always happy (surprised too) to have someone agree with me, it's not so clear that we do agree. I don't have a problem, at least not necessarily, with bids along the way that are designed to discourage a lead. It's a little hard to guess what was happening here. From the 3N I gather he had a large hand. With a couple of spades it seems he would have bid 2N over 1H with a 2-5-3-3 rather than a passable 2C while if his pattern begins 1-5 he would have four of something and I would expect him to bid the four card suit rather than the three. I don't doubt that some pairs can fool around with certain bids that their partners know not to take seriously. I wouldn't off hand say it is clear that this is such a case. Could be true, but I wouldn't hang him on this.

 

There is a related issue: 1H-1S-2C. It seems to me this could well be three cards, especially if opener refuses to open 1N with a five card major. Left to my own choices, I would generally open 1NT whenever opening 1H would present this problem (with a marginal 15 I can rebid 1H-1S-1N, with a decent 17 I rebid 1H-1S-2N, in between I open 1NT) but if it really drives partner nuts when I open 1N with 5M, then I open 1M and rebid a three card minor if I must. I don't alert. I don't object to doing so, but as near as I can see, no one ever does. I cannot recall it.

 

 

I am not actually on any sort of crusade here but the original poster found himself penalized for an action that I would not criticize, and I think it worthwhile to try to see where the line is. Somewhere there no doubt is a (fuzzy) line.

[Richardrls]

I think it is clear by now that the majority of us disagree with the Director's ruling as given. However, I do not see the need to call the Director's ruling as abusive or wrong. Any ruling by a director can be appealed at most bridge clubs I am aware of. While I am new to BBO, I would assume that it also has appeal procedures. That is the right place for a disagreement with a Director's ruling, not here in a bridge forum....just my opinion.